Maybe I'll sell my 9000 on ebay and get one of these.it says 120, but I would hope it does 35mm too.

I stopped shooting 120 mostly cause I can't get good scans out of my 9000.

The 9000 is awesome, but a pain in the ass, sometimes. The holders blow, the glass holder works but Newton Rings if the film is not perfect, the regular holder half works. I would often make four scans using different methods of mounting. The Opticfilm's holders look awesome.

The 9000 is awesome, but a pain in the ass, sometimes. The holders blow, the glass holder works but Newton Rings if the film is not perfect, the regular holder half works. I would often make four scans using different methods of mounting. The Opticfilm's holders look awesome.

I don't understand, you stopped shooting 120 because you cannot get good results? That's what this machine is designed for. Have you set your 9000 up correctly in the preferences section of Nikon scan?

Also I have modified my 120 film holder and have removed the original plastic hinges that hold the film flat and replaced it with two sheets of AN glass cut to size. I just sandwich the film between the glass and use a couple of small pieces of Blutack at either end of the glass to stop it moving in the holder.

If you are using a windows pc, then it is also possible to run Nikonscan with no issues on a windows 7 64bit OS like I do. I am using the firewire port on my PC with the following mod.

That's what this machine is designed for. Have you set your 9000 up correctly in the preferences section of Nikon scan?

I think so... idk though. One problem I have is that it seems to "guess" where the edges of the film is an it's usually wrong. There seems to be no way in nikon scan to change where these lines are if it's incorrect. I usually just open it back up and move the film.

Also I have modified my 120 film holder and have removed the original plastic hinges that hold the film flat and replaced it with two sheets of AN glass cut to size. I just sandwich the film between the glass and use a couple of small pieces of Blutack at either end of the glass to stop it moving in the holder.

The samples they have available on their site suck-not in the same league as the Nikon 9000. You may as well get an Epson 750 if that is all they can do.

It looks like it is wide open with a Kiev, so I'm not ready to pass judgment. It takes time and effort to get the best out of a scanner. The best I've seen from my 9000 was Mamiya 7, 65 at F 11, scanned with the glass holder. I'd like to see a negative of that quality scanned on this machine by someone who knows what they are doing.

As with all scanners I'd expect that you need to be an expert user (or at least behave like one ) to get the most out of it. Factory sample images are rarely good.

Your kidding right? What business does not put their best examples forward? It frankly gives me very little confidence to think they could somehow design and produce a first class scanner and yet not know how to get a good scan out of it? The opposite conclusion is much more likely-that they don't have a clue what a good scan is and therefore designed a mediocre scanner.

Exactly. The 1ds3, D3x and D800 samples were not great. The Plustek scans, as far as I can tell, come from the marketing person shooting his Kiev, using Silverfast in auto mode. I will not pass judgement yet.

because I don't get the scans right and 35mm/35mm slides scan so well with this scanner. So I just go with the "easier" film.Granted it's somewhat easier with 35mm as the scanner has the frame edges on the plastic holder as a guide to where it needs to scan.

With the MF scans one needs to use the extra black supplied with the scanner (or an old piece of film that's totally black) to mask off the film, so that the scanner can find the frame. This is also easier when using glass.

I think so... idk though. One problem I have is that it seems to "guess" where the edges of the film is an it's usually wrong. There seems to be no way in nikon scan to change where these lines are if it's incorrect. I usually just open it back up and move the film.

Was anyone away that this scanner doesn't have adjustable focus or autofocus? In addition, there are no glass carriers, so keeping the film flat will be impossible. In essence, it suffers from the same deficiencies as a inexpensive flatbed scanner. I was going to buy the OpticFilm 120 but without adjustable focus, I see little point. I'll check out the Microtek Artix F1. (which has adjustable focus and a greater Dmax than the Plustek). - It even costs slightly less than the OpticFilm 120.

It is really hard to me to understand why there is so much interess in products of a cheap- low value products company that never made a scanner that could be called as a scanner.low value chip together with low value lens will never make scans that can be usable, not to say good.From where a company like plustek or other cheap producents could get a good lens? even Nikons lens is not really good- made by Nikon, so it was cheap for nikon to use they own lens and not to buy it at other company- in comparision to Rodenstock lenses used by Imacon the one in Nikon looks very poor. Every Imacon scanner, even the oldels or the little one like 343 will always outperfom any other scanner that will be done in the future becouse of the lens, that cost more than a Nikon 9000 or other similar scanner.If I would do 120 Film I would go to Imacon 343 that is really cheap second hand. You can be sure that there will be never make a scanner that will achieve this quality.ofcource drum scanners is other class of scanning quality, for people who want simply the best.

I'm actually thinking the best thing to do with film is wet print it. Time not spent at a computer I'm now classing as "quality time".Inkjets drive me insane, they are like five year old children, always got a reason not to do what you asked it nicely to do.I've had all kinds of scanners, even a Dainippon drum scanner, scanning truly is a pain in the A.....

I now stick with my old 8000 and Vuescan, plus a A3 Heidelberg flatbed which is sharper than any Epson I've ever seen. It cost me £60. with the mac thrown in.That Plustec looks seriously over priced to me, there is so much quality secondhand scanners about for peanuts in comparison. Am Imacon or Creo would be on my list.Come Jan/Feb the darkroom will be back up and running, certainly for B&W and I'm undecided about investing in colour printing. If I thought for sure it was going to be around for the next ten years I would do it.

Before we shit all over the Plustek it would be nice if we actually saw how it works. The Artix F1 is OK, better for prints.

Theoreticaly the Plustek's holders hold the film very flat and there is enough DOF in the lens itself. I buy that this is possible. I don't know if it works, and sure you don't know if it works. Lets just see some reviews from peope who know what thy are doing, if it ever starts shipping, before passing judgment.

Was anyone away that this scanner doesn't have adjustable focus or autofocus? In addition, there are no glass carriers, so keeping the film flat will be impossible. In essence, it suffers from the same deficiencies as a inexpensive flatbed scanner. I was going to buy the OpticFilm 120 but without adjustable focus, I see little point. I'll check out the Microtek Artix F1. (which has adjustable focus and a greater Dmax than the Plustek). - It even costs slightly less than the OpticFilm 120.

It is really hard to me to understand why there is so much interess in products of a cheap- low value products company that never made a scanner that could be called as a scanner.low value chip together with low value lens will never make scans that can be usable, not to say good.From where a company like plustek or other cheap producents could get a good lens? even Nikons lens is not really good- made by Nikon, so it was cheap for nikon to use they own lens and not to buy it at other company- in comparision to Rodenstock lenses used by Imacon the one in Nikon looks very poor. Every Imacon scanner, even the oldels or the little one like 343 will always outperfom any other scanner that will be done in the future becouse of the lens, that cost more than a Nikon 9000 or other similar scanner.If I would do 120 Film I would go to Imacon 343 that is really cheap second hand. You can be sure that there will be never make a scanner that will achieve this quality.ofcource drum scanners is other class of scanning quality, for people who want simply the best.

In terms of no auto focus on the Plustek, the lens has enough depth of field to get the entire scan in focus despite any film flatness issues. This is rather big in my opinion. Also should speed up scanning quite a bit. FWIW, I can scan from my Nikon 9000 with stunning results. Is it a quirky pain in the rump at times? Yup. But it's vastly better than anything I've received from any lab and developing a 16 bit RAW file from a scan in LR4 is pretty much does anything I want it to.